Jonatan Larochelle

The Applicant sought an order barring the Crown from prosecuting him for an allegation of choking, arguing that the charge formed part of a prior resolution and that prosecution would amount to double jeopardy under sections 725(1) and 725(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the choking allegation was not part of the previous proceedings and could be prosecuted.

The court found that the choking allegation was not previously adjudicated or considered, and therefore, the Crown was not barred from proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Raoul Saucier, in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown argued the evidence of a prior sexual assault conviction against K.D. was relevant to consent and the exploitation of vulnerable victims, highlighting similarities in the accused's conduct.

The court, applying the Handy test, found the asserted similarities between the prior conviction and the current allegations to be generic and lacking sufficient cogency to establish an objective improbability of coincidence.

Despite the judge-alone trial, the court found a significant risk of moral prejudice, concluding that the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The application was dismissed, rendering the similar fact evidence inadmissible.